wideangle - vintage (prime or sigma zoom?) in the range of 21mm?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by argon, Apr 9, 2015.

  1. argon

    argon TalkEmount Regular

    25
    Dec 1, 2014
    Padua, Italy
    Giovanni
    i have nex-7 and yesterday i've buyed this..by contacting the seller shhh :eek:
    atm i have only one lens the MC rokkor PF 58 f1.4

    i want a wideangle in MD mount.. in the range of 100-150€.. (yes is not too much.. please help me by suggest me any wideangle in MD mount in the range of this budget..)

    which one is better to get.

    minolta pg 17 f9.5

    or
    minolta mc rokkor 21mm 2.8 NL 1966 - 1972 (metal finish)

    +
    any good md 35mm


    or

    a zoom
    like this..

    Sigma Y-Zoom 21-35/3.5-4.2

    or any good md or tamron wideange for example..
     
  2. xXx1

    xXx1 TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 15, 2013
    I have a Minolta 24mm-35mm zoom coming from Netherlands. One lens I have kept in mind is Cosina 19mm-35mm. Neither is probably better than kit zoom. Anything shorter than 24mm in legacy lenses is going to cost too much and even most 24mm are too expensive for a crop sensor.
     
  3. argon

    argon TalkEmount Regular

    25
    Dec 1, 2014
    Padua, Italy
    Giovanni
    i can not find that Cosina in MD mount (does it exist?) .. but i found a Cosina Wide-Angle 3.8/20 MC in MD mount and i think is ugly and probably i'll get bad quality from it..
    and i don't think is better than the Rokkor series..
    i've read that a MC Rokkor 21mm can slightly getting closer to the top of the range of Sony Zeiss wide-angle (the unattainable 16-35 f4 ZA)
    Minolta_21mm_f28_MC-X_on_Sony_A7.
    Sony_Zeiss_16-35mm_f28_at_22mm_on_A900.

    is Vivitar so bad? i think yes but.. some lens still looks good. people what's you're opinion on the Vivitar 19mm/3.8 on Minolta MD ??
     
  4. VLReviews

    VLReviews TalkEmount Regular

    33
    Mar 16, 2015
    Germany
    Benjamin
    Side note: These are images from http://artaphot.ch/. Please be fair and credit them.

    On topic: The MC 21 mm f/2.8 is a very good lens, as far as I have read and seen. The early MD 24 mm f/2.8 would an equally good but less "exotic" alternative as it is much more common. Then, there's the Kiron 24 mm f/2 (!), which also exists relabeled as Vivitar 24 mm f/2. A very fast lens, but rather low on contrast wide open, not tack sharp and with strong CAs. The Vivitar can also be found in a Komine version, which is supposed to be slightly better. All the Kiron, Komine and Vivitar lenses are less expensive than the Minolta 24 mm.
    Concerning zooms, the Minolta MD 24-35 mm f/3.5 is supposed to be inferior to the the MD 24-50 mm f/4, but it is also cheaper and easier to come by. Personally, I wouldn't recommend a wide angle vintage zoom. Wide angle lenses are hard to correct optically and it's not easier when adding zoom functionality.

    A very affordable and solid 35 mm would be an MC Rokkor 35 mm f/2.8 or the supposedly much improved MD-III version of the lens. My personal favorite: The f/1.8. The MC W.Rokkor-HH 35 mm f/1.8 is very usable wide open and razor sharp when stopped down a bit. I've read that the MD version is slightly better, but couldn't verify this, yet. The MD sure is much smaller and lighter than the MC but both f/1.8 are a bit pricey.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary

    Just curious, why must it be MD mount? an adapter is <$10 and you can open up many more options. For example Canon FD mount.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. argon

    argon TalkEmount Regular

    25
    Dec 1, 2014
    Padua, Italy
    Giovanni
    thank you, VLR!! I very appreciate your opinion about "wide angle zoom"...

    but I'm still in dub to what i'll probably get.. and you didn't talk about more wide Vivitar lens like what i'm think to get..
    what do you think about the:

    Vivitar Auto Wide-Angle 21mm 3.8 (found on ebay for about 100€ does it worth?)
    Vivitar 19mm 3.8
    Sigma Y-Zoom 21-35mm f 3.5-4.2
    Cosina MC 3,8/20 (same price as the vivitar..)
    Tamron SP 3.5/17mm Adaptall 2 (found at 200€ double of cosina :mad:


    Because, I have Lens Turbo in MD mount, so my cropfactor is downsize to 1.09x and a wideangle like a 21mm will look like a true 22mm on my aps-c nex-7..

    in the end: I can not afford a Sony A7, and i think is still too early to switch to mirrorless full frame...
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2015
  7. VLReviews

    VLReviews TalkEmount Regular

    33
    Mar 16, 2015
    Germany
    Benjamin
    Well... I just don't know these lenses, so I couldn't tell you a thing about them :D

    Anything wider than a 24 mm as a vintage lens is a gamble, though. There are good ones (usually pricey) but there are many lemons, too :) As third party lenses are almost always produced in multiple mounts, you could check http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/ for reviews of those you listed. I often found useful info, there.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  8. xXx1

    xXx1 TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 15, 2013
    Cosina was maybe the most variable Japan lens maker. I think that mechanics was usually their weakest point.

    It is worth checking Vivitar lens serial numbers as they tell the real manufacturer.

    I ordered a EF Lens Turbo as you can have adapters to EF mount for most of legacy lenses. Unfortunately MD isn't one of them.
     
  9. jai

    jai TalkEmount Top Veteran

    589
    Feb 4, 2013
    Even really expensive MD wide angle lenses, like the MD Rokkor 24mm F2.8, can't really compete with the very cheap E-mount Sigma 19mm. Sure it's not quite as wide, but probably a better choice.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. xXx1

    xXx1 TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 15, 2013
    19mm is wider than 24mm. I am interested in Yashica ML 24mm/2.8 but it costs about 300 €. That is more than double the price of Sigma 19mm. Samyang 12mm/2.0 is about 300 € too.

    I doubt that Lens Turbo II and 24mm lens will make as good lens as Sigma 19mm (but it is 17mm)

    I have Olympus OM 24mm/2.8 coming next week. That is for moving to full frame some day. I paid 150 € for that. Will test it with Lens Turbo II too (coming next week too).
     
  11. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    I have both and for wide-angle use I'd recommend the 24-35mm: it's fairly good at 24mm and f/8-11 with reasonably sharp corners, better than the Minolta 24mm primes (Rokkor and plain MD) I have. The 24-50mm is a lot bigger and heavier, generally commands higher prices, is more difficult to find and I didn't find its image quality very convincing. The 24-35mm's image quality continuously degrades when zooming out to 35mm where corners get unsharp. I never use any of my Minolta 24mm options, I have and regularly use an Olympus 24mm 1:2.8 which does great.

    One big caveat in discussing image quality of lenses is always sample variation. I'm fairly sure that the Minolta 24mm primes generally have unsharp corners, I've had 5 of them and all had/have the same issues. If you don't care about corner sharpness, all are excellent. I don't know about sample variability for the zoom lenses; I think more favorably about the 24-35mm than almost anyone else, so I guess I got lucky in getting a good sample. And I've seen someone trashing the Olympus 24mm mentioned before, in total contradiction to my experience.

    BTW, avoid any Minolta 20mm, be it the MD Rokkor or the plain MD version. Philip Reeve did a review pointing out the unsharpness in the region between center and corner. Mine does the same and even at f/16 I find it unacceptable. Don't know about the Minolta 21mm, I'm still trying to pick one up at a reasonable price.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 2
  12. xXx1

    xXx1 TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 15, 2013
    Even Minolta 24-35mm isn't very common. I got mine for 50 €. OM 24mm/2.8 did cost 150 €.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Agree with that. If you're at all thinking about getting legacy lenses, I'd order a bunch of Chinese adapters as a preventive measure because they're cheap and can take long to arrive. I'd order them for mounts like Minolta MD (or MC or SR, same thing), Canon FD, Olympus OM, Nikon F, Pentax K, Konica AR, that covers a lot of what's available in affordable legacy glass.
     
  14. jai

    jai TalkEmount Top Veteran

    589
    Feb 4, 2013
    I do think that often the sharpness in the corners isn't actually that important to the photo. I don't use my 24mm Rokkor that much on my NEX any more, but do you know where it is still really great? On an actual Minolta camera. For some reason it just works better.

    2015-03-21-0049.jpg by Jai Sbr, on Flickr
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    I've watched your picture full-screen, great shot! This one deserves a large-format print I think. Before you do that, the rendition in Flickr shows a small white part at the right bottom, maybe you wanna fix it.

    Now that you mention it, I once took a Minolta film camera and shot a film just for fun, using the 24-50mm and the pics came out wonderfully. A film camera apparently is a different beast, also when it comes to lenses.
     
  16. jai

    jai TalkEmount Top Veteran

    589
    Feb 4, 2013
    Whoops didn't see that. Cropped it out! Cheers.
     
  17. argon

    argon TalkEmount Regular

    25
    Dec 1, 2014
    Padua, Italy
    Giovanni
    i'm following a bid for an Tokina 24-40 AT-X f2.8 Manual Focus... i'll probably go with them or with the Sigma 21-35 Y-zoom f3.5-f4.2 if i lost the tokina..
     
  18. izTheViz

    izTheViz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    537
    May 10, 2013
    Paris
    Yannis Marigo
    The FD 20:2.8 is a no brainer
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. michelb

    michelb TalkEmount Regular

    197
    Oct 27, 2013
    Greater Montreal area in Quebec, Canada
    Michel Brien
    • Informative Informative x 2
  20. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Looking very good! Only the extreme corners get blurry, the rest of the frame is sharp even at 100 % viewing and in a 36 MP file at that, impressive. Which focal length was it taken with?